Legal Opinion

United States v. One Ford Automobile Truck

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided January 12, 1923No. Nos. 6117, 6677PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CUSHMAN, District Judge.

The libels of information in the above-entitled causes pray forfeiture, condemnation, and sale of the above-described automobiles because, as alleged in cause No. 6117:

“Said Ford automobile truck * * * was used in tbe removal and for tbe deposit and concealment of goods and commodities, to wit, morphine, on which the internal revenue tax imposed by law upon such morphine had not been paid, with, intent thentand there to defraud the United States of the said tax or some part thereof.”

And in cause No. 6677:

“Said Paige automobile * * * was then and there being used * * '…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. South v. Commissioners of the Sinking FundCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. United States v. One Buick AutomobileDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1924
  2. United States v. One Kissel Touring AutomobileDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1923
  3. Commercial Credit Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1925
  4. States v. ManganoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
  5. United States v. One Studebaker AutomobileDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1924

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API